Expanded College Football Playoff on the horizon?

In my opinion, I'm with the 72%. This would give every team a legitimate path to a national title. Win your conference and you have a shot. And playing the first round or two at home stadiums would be awesome. Could you imagine the atmosphere of Lane Stadium hosting a CFB Playoff Game?

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

8 will lead to 16 which will lead lead to 32 which will eventually get all 128 in for sudden death matches. Let's do it!

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"

KCCO

8 will lead to 16 which will lead lead to 32 which will eventually get all 128

I like the 8 team model. Sports are about selling hope. Automatic qualifiers allow for everybody to have a puncher's chance.

Downside: blueblood rosters are going to nearly be a requirement to win 3 straight top ten matchup. So, while everybody has hope, it actually gets harder to bring home the trophy.

Sidenote: teams that overcome injuries or undergo extraordinary development during the season have a shot in this scenario. Downside, Goliath can also overcome an upset easier.

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

An added benefit of the automatic qualifier is that, in theory, it should help spread out talent around the sport. You won't have to be on a superteam at Alabama or Clemson to get your shot. You just need to win your division to have a shot.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I like this thought, but I would maybe counter with the fact that after a few years (maybe not even needed)...people will see that it's impossible to win 3 playoff games without a blue blood roster and the sport will remain or become even more blue bloody just as it's always been. Overall, though, I'd be in favor of 8 teams. :)

Counter-to-my-counterpoint: a hot QB/offense on a non-blue blood that otherwise would not have got a shot could run the gauntlet of blue blood playoff teams

Win your conference and you have a shot.

No, that's the NCAAM tournament. This one, it's "win your conference and hope that you have a better G5 resume than another G5 team who won their conference, too and you have a shot."

Could you imagine the atmosphere of Lane Stadium hosting a CFB Playoff Game?

I can't imagine being a top 4 seed in a playoff in order to earn us home field advantage in the quarters.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

No, that's the NCAAM tournament. This one, it's "win your conference and hope that you have a better G5 resume than another G5 team who won their conference, too and you have a shot."

Being realistic for a second, there is really only one G5 team, maybe 2 in a year of P5 chaos, that really ever has the resume to be comparable to the P5 champs. Big picture, I still think the end game here is the P5 to break away and form their own division where they can hoard the money for themselves.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I agree. I'm actually on board with 8 teams, I just know teams are still gonna bitch about being a good G5 team, but always being on the outside looking in.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

If you were asking me to decide, I'd much rather have all P5 champs in and be nitpicking which G5 bring in than to keep the free for all we have now where you're leaving at least one P5 champ out and completely locking the G5 out.

In an ideal world, we have a 12 to 14 team playoff, bring in all P5 and G5 champs, 2-4 at large teams, and give the best 2-4 a BYE to open the playoff, which would give more schools an opportunity to host a playoff game.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

That's too extreme. Not fair to the second best in a tough conference

Recruit Prosim

16 is the eventual format, unless the P5 splits off into a third D1 subdivsion.

8 team setup is fine with me provided it looks something like this (given current conference alignments):
- the conference champions from the P5 get an automatic qualification (and I dont give a sh*t about their actual record compared to other conference champions and non-champions)
- the remaining teams are essentially wild-cards from the entire P5 & G5 pool, and their selection should/could be made using a ranking system similar to the BCS/CFP ranking system

Alternatively (again with current conference alignments):
- 12 team format, first round bye for the top 4 seeds
- seeding determined via BCS/CFP-like rating system
- all conference champions are in (both P5 and G5)
- 2 wild cards handed out based on the two best available (based on BCS/CFP rankings) non-champions

Yeah, I think a good idea would be to have the 5 conference winners and 3 at large picks. Need to have rules for who gets in at large to make sure that 6-6 or 7-5 Notre Dame does not get in like they got into the Fiesta Bowl with a 6-4-1 record. Perhaps say that any at large pick must be ranked in the top 10, 12, 15, whatever or maybe have at least 10 wins.

Some have suggested the highest ranked lower conference team get a bid. That would be fine too. They would get 1 of the 3 remaining bids automatically as long as they meet the criteria of the other at large teams. That is 10 wins or top 10 or top 15 or whatever criteria you want to set.

Probably not practical as far in advance as games are scheduled, but I would not mind shortening the season by a game to increase the playoffs so 18-22 year olds are not playing so much and taking so much time away from studies.

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

I'm pretty sure any P5 at-large teams would be the highest ranked teams that aren't already in from auto bids. Basically, you'd have to be in the top 8 to get in as an at-large. Possibly even higher if you have conference champs (or G5) ranked lower than 8.

I'm all for an expanded playoff.

In 2020, they could totally cut down on the number of games and do the Most Expanded Playoff by just doing random draw, single elimination like the FA Cup

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

It might muddy the waters a bit, but I'm only for automatic bids for conference champs if they have also reach a certain threshold of wins or maybe a limit on losses. A 7-5 Coastal team who upsets an undefeated Clemson in a conference tournament championship shouldn't get into the playoffs. I don't know exactly where you draw the line or if you even can set an arbitrary number but that just wouldn't sit well with me.

I'm tired of subjectivity in college football. Yes, it drives discussion and it rakes money for networks like ESPN, but its really just bad for sports. The human element is the worst thing about college football at this point, where it really doesn't matter what Alabama or Clemson does in any given year, what they did the previous 3 has earned them enough clout to basically walk to the playoff every year.

Give me clear defined path that the human element cannot interrupt and I'm good. You win your division and your conference, you are in. Period. If you want to include some human element to bring in a "deserving" team after the base field has been set, fine, but let that clearly defined path set the base.

And in your scenario, I don't give a crap about that 7-5 Coastal team being in. If they are really that bad, they'll be the last seed and the best team will basically get a bye to the next round. And if they somehow run the table and win it all, then maybe we need to reconsider just how 'bad' those 5 losses really were. And if they did go on that run and did win it all, the storyline that playoff run would put anything the current setup has to shame. Win for everyone, except that one Clemson team that who couldn't win a high pressure game (who, lets be honest, got invited in as an at-large anyway, negating the original complaint)

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

If they are really that bad, they'll be the last seed and the best team will basically get a bye to the next round.

Counterpoint, that 7-5 might capture the magic and upset the playoff on a Cinderella run. I think about how the New York Giants turned it on in playoff and defeated the New England Patriots during that one magical year.

Edit: I failed to read your entire comment so I am basically agreeing with you. Oops.

Comment Disclaimer: My comment are meant to be taken as-is. If you cannot handle it, do not hit ‘Reply All.’

I think it's a joke that an 8-8 team or even a 7-9 team can have a shot at a Super Bowl. Makes the NFL regular season so much less high stakes until the final few weeks. However, if you love that, it's available to you via the NFL. There is substantially less parity in college football than any US pro league, so that model makes even less sense in college.

It is only a joke if teams are somehow sitting players or similar knowing they would make the playoff. That isn't happening except maybe final week with locks. If a team evolves into a super bowl team, I am all for it. The path isnt easy for them so they have to earn it.

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

For me, it's what makes playoff so appealing. You just never know who is going to capture the lightning in the bottle and surprise everyone.

Just like a certain #16 seed beat a certain #1 seed for the first time ever in NCAA tournament. Did it make that certain #1 seed's regular season that less significant? I say no.

Comment Disclaimer: My comment are meant to be taken as-is. If you cannot handle it, do not hit ‘Reply All.’

Was thinking along the same lines but with the 1973 New York Mets. Beat the Big Red Machine-era Reds and then took the As to 7 games. No one would say a division winner in MLB or NFL should not make the playoffs just because their division is weak that year. All for a 7-5 conference champion getting in. Just don't want 7-5 Notre Dame getting in just because "they're Notre Dame!"

Recovering scientist working in business consulting

I will say that division winners in the nfl shouldn't get home field advantage though. 4 division winners, 2 wild cards get in, but seed by record. It was so stupid that the end best record had to go on the road a year or two ago.

I feel like you're making up scenarios that don't exist. Clemson has been undefeated time and time again. When Alabama lost they kept them out and put LSU in. Like I feel the sentiment, but at the same time I don't see the evidence

Recruit Prosim

Not to nit-pick but putting a threshold on wins/losses still removes subjectivity in that decision. How you choose to replace that team brings in subjectivity, but it can be done without it by saying they're replaced by the highest ranked team not already in.

replaced by the highest ranked team

That's not how you eliminate the human element and give a clear path to the playoff for each school in the P5.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Some on the Reddit thread mentioned that requiring a conference champ to be ranked top-25 would be a fairly consistent way to enforce this.

This is always my thing. If we win the ACC at 7-5 we don't deserve a shot. That undermines one of the things I love most about college football which is the hyper intense regular season.

I thing there should definitely be a cutoff ranking or win-wise.

Tell that to the basketball teams. Win and you are in. If the "better seed" was truly the better team, they wouldn't lose. You can only play the games on your schedule. And if you make it to the conference championship with a chance to make the playoffs, well, that cannot be changed. If there is to be criteria set upon conference champions in order to make it to the playoffs, then there must be criteria set on the schedule in the first place. Unfortunately, there is no way to manage or predict that in the current system. (And maybe not even with huge adjustments.)

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

For an 8 team tournament, we're solidly in agreement.

Long-term, until we have a tournament where the number of seeds is greater than the number of conferences, we're going to keep arguing about reinventing the wheel.

One solution might to be a sport and consider the wheel.

Edit: u/Saladbar introduces these ratios in the Reddit thread:

Let's look at the tournament inclusion rates for the four mandatory-counter NCAA D1 sports:
Men's Basketball: 68/352 = 19.3%
Women's Basketball: 64/350 = 18.3%
Women's Volleyball: 64/334 = 19.2%
Baseball: 64/300 = 21.3%

The equivalent FBS ratio would be ~25 team tournament. We still get a competitive regular season where the playoff field remains significantly tighter than average with a 16 team field.

Those sports also don't have the contact, team size, logistics that football have...

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

From a player safety perspective, a cap & trade argument to maintaining risk either requires shortening the season or lowering repetitions through rule changes. I don't know what the ramifications of each compromise might entail, but I could be convinced to do away with a high-risk play such as the kickoff, which has been argued to be stupid and bad (at least from the numbers in the NFL).

Some of us may not be fans of the Schiano Proposal, but based on the injury rate of the kickoff alone, that may be a natural evolution of the sport regardless of playoff expansion.

From a financial perspective, we're discussing a sport that maintains 40 post-season exhibitions in its present state. Three of which encompass a playoff.

If as many as 15 games were involved with the playoff, there would still be 25 exhibition matchups, leaving 14 teams at home that would have been invited to a bowl. You might make an argument that it's not fair to the 6-6/5-7 teams on the fringe, but at the cost to the 12-0 teams that aren't presently eligible for a championship; it's probably a trade worth considering.

Scheduling and player safety are probably the two most robust obstructions to a playoff. Presently we have a sport where only half of the schools are ever in consideration for a championship. There are obstacles to making it work, but there aren't really any slam-dunk arguments that prove it could not.

Nope, don't even want that.

Remove ALL subjectivity from the auto-bids. Give all P5 programs a very clear, distinct path to national championship that does not have 'eye test' interference. None of this "well, if we don't feeeeeeeeeeeel like they are good enough they shouldn't get in" crap.

And really, what are we arguing here? A team not deemed 'good enough' is likely going to be cattle fodder for the top team in the country. If they lose, nobody will care in a week and the best team will move on, just like these people would want anyway. And if they moved on, maybe they were a hell of a lot better than people gave them credit for. At least you're giving them a chance to prove it on the field after they won the games they needed.

I would be apoplectic if VT was left out of the playoff after winning the ACC, regardless of what our record would be. If we proved it by winning our division and beating the best team that the Atlantic had to throw at us, we deserve at least a shot at the title, as should any other team in a power conference.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

And really, what are we arguing here? A team not deemed 'good enough' is likely going to be cattle fodder for the top team in the country

Simple, sports are for entertainment. I want to watch good games. I don't want to watch Alabama punk a 7-5 team 49-7 when there could be an 11-1 or 10-2 team that is much better and could give them a reasonable game.

then wait a week

I would much rather watch the chaos of a 7-5 team winning their way into the playoff, then watch the top team in the country get a somewhat better, but still overmatched opponent in the opening round of the playoff.

The NHL playoffs last year was awesome because chaos reigned in the opening rounds. Bottle that up, and serve that in all sports, and things would be better.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I would much rather watch the chaos of a 7-5 team winning their way into the playoff, then watch the top team in the country get a somewhat better, but still overmatched opponent in the opening round of the playoff.

You get to watch this is in every professional sport in the country. College football has something unique and different. I don't see the reason to make it like everything else. You have that product available to you already, like the NHL playoffs you referenced.

Also, why would I "wait a week," when the current option, and better option imo, is for the first game to feature a better team with a real shot. Again, the parity in college football is not even remotely comparable to any professional sport except non-US soccer, operating under a similarly capitalistic model to college football.

Imagine that, all the games having a higher chance of being good, instead of watching 7-5 Pitt get curb stomped by Alabama because they "deserve a shot!"

Sports are for competition. You are assuming that team couldn't compete which is what is wrong with the current system. Plus, we are already getting blowouts among the top 4 worthy teams.

It won't happen often anyway. Odds are way better that the conference champ is at least a 9 or 10 win team even if there is an upset.

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

About that...Alabama's semi-final wins in the CFP:

2018 - 12-1 Oklahoma gave up 21 points in the first quarter.
2017 - beat 13-0 #1 Clemson 24-6
2016 - beat 12-1 Washington, 24-7
2015 - beat 12-1 Michigan State, 38-0

How much worse would they have been if you replace those teams with 7 or 8 win teams?

Also, Oklahoma did go down early, but that game actually ended up being entertaining down the stretch, even though it still felt like Alabama was going to hold on the whole way. At least Oklahoma made it to where they had to keep scoring. Also Alabama pulled away from Washington late in 2016 in a game where the Washington defense did nothing to embarrass themselves.

My counter to this is always the 2017 playoffs. Which put the best four teams in, despite controversy, and produced two out of three absolutely incredible games. The 24-6 Bama-Clemson SF was the only "blowout," and it was 10-3 at halftime.

I get where you are coming from. A college football game with great teams in a dogfight late in the 4th quarter is the best sports have to offer. However, we don't get it as often as we like. Truth is, the playoff games have been underwhelming compared to what I had expected it to be. So, let's not ruin the hopes of 90% of the teams for the sake of wishful matchups that don't often enough live up to expectations.

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

Agree with this. We're talking about taking the vast majority of teams out of the conversation in the hopes that we don't get a "weak" team in the playoffs. How often does the weaker, 7-5 team, beat the undefeated or nearly undefeated strong team on the other side? Not very often. If they do, well then they get in. But it's not like it's happening every year where some juggernaut gets bounced in their Conf Championship to a mediocre team.

As it is now, one conf champion is getting left out due to the subjectivity of everything. And a lot depends on where they start at in the preseason. Eight teams gives every conference and team a fighting chance. There is usually one G5 team that has a great season and wants a shot that they otherwise won't get no matter how well they do. And then two "at-large" bids for the top 10 team that lost their conf championship or something.

I've always thought 8 makes sense. I have wanted 8 teams since the playoffs started. I don't think it lessens the season in any way. It only makes 2 more bowl games playoff games. I agree with having that first round played at a schools stadium as well. You can keep the semi's and championship at a "neutral" location.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

The only time in recent memory that I recall anyone even remotely worrying about a 7-5 team winning a conference was Pitt in 2018. And I think they're the only 7-5/6-6 team that's gotten to a conference championship game without other teams in front of them getting disqualified. (Just limiting to what I remember over the last few years.)

8 teams seems just about right. Gives being in a P5 conference a meaning and a direct path and also makes the at large bids be more open which should make some teams not be so pansy assed(looking at you penn state) on their out of conference schedule. Momentum is a dangerous thing I dont think it would be otherworldly for a team not in the top 4 to win it all like wildcard teams in the NFL sometimes the irons hot and they cant be stopped. I've been hoping this would happen sooner rather than later. As for the first round games being on college campuses I think that would be cool and an added incentive but not a huge advantage.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

P5 and 2 G5 champions get automatic bids if ranked in the top 25, then allow for at least one, true, at-large team, picked by the committee.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

I'm ok with 8 teams, but I don't like the trend. More games equates to more opportunities for players to get injured. And more injuries (while never a good thing regardless) means a greater gap between the recruiting blue bloods, who simply put in the next backup 4-5 star athlete and carry on, and the rest of schools who take years to develop 2-3 star athletes to garner 4-star skills. Regardless of the ongoing discussion about recruiting rankings not meaning a thing, the difference in performance drop off of each scenario is substantial. And I also happen to agree with Ivan Maisel on his College vs. NFL take. https://www.espn.com/college-football/preview06/columns/story?columnist=...

HTHokie93

Talk about a disadvantage if you're the G5 school that has to go play at Bama for the 1 vs 8 game

I just sit on my couch and b*tch. - HokieChemE2016

8 teams feels right and is probably the best direction to go.

But there's a part of me that wonders what 16 teams would be like. All P5/G5 winners, 6 at large. Seeds based on rankings, higher seeds play at home for two rounds, semifinals and finals in bowl venues. Seems a little fun, right?

I think you would be surprised at how few major upsets there would be. So if chalk wins, what is the point of all the extra wear and tear. College football has always seemed to have a have and have not line somewhere around the top ten.

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

College football has always seemed to have a have and have not line somewhere around the top ten.

Absolutely.

When the coaches and the press-writers selected the top teams by popularity, the same top teams were always in recycle.

When we picked the top 2 teams to duke it out, that didn't change much. We're up to a 4 team tournament, and still maintain about the same ratio. What would it take to get a small team a chance to make it big?

I think you would be surprised at how few major upsets there would be.

The Power 5 is a perfect 3-3 against Group of 5 teams in NY6 bowls.

While this would not be the expected record in the format of an expanded tournament, the idea that the G5 is an insurmountable gulf of talent lower than the P5 is not backed up by numbers.

Much like the #1-16 seed record in March Madness- maybe there's an equivalent to that in football. But to declare the rest of the field unfit to compete perpetuates the same ~10 team have & have not design.

The highest ranked G5 school is 3-3 against the P5 in NY6 bowls. But, in an 8 team format, that same G5 is probably already in the playoff. That would leave the lesser G5 or other teams playing the highest ranked conference winners (big dogs). It gets dramatically more lopsided 16 teams out.

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

I admitted this much in my last two paragraphs. However you led with this statement:

I think you would be surprised at how few major upsets there would be.

Since 2004, P5 teams playing G5 teams in New Years bowls have been projected to go 11-2.

They've gone 6-7. The G5 team averages 6 points better than the spread. These results would not elicit the predicted reaction.

I agree that some teams are not given their due and are better than we think. I just think broadening to 16 is going to pair those schools up with those top 3 to 5 teams that always seem to separate themselves from the pack. I would not expect that kind of upset. A 16 seed could maybe pull the upset over a team on the bubble of those next tier talented teams, but they won't get the chance based on seeding.

Every year there are 3 to 5 teams that are just different. Then there is a log jam to maybe top 12 and then another tier rounding out the top 25. That two tier jump is going to be huge in a win or go home atmosphere. I think that is what you were getting at with the 1 vs 16 in bball. So, I think we mostly agree.

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

I think if (when?) they expand to 16 teams, they'll follow the basketball tournament model where the top 4 seeds get a double-bye and the next 4 get a single-bye. This is based on nothing more than my hunch that the P5 will want to minimize the number of times their top teams could be embarrassed by a G5 team.

I'm 100% against 16, because the 16 will beat Alabama one year and for 60 straight days on every platform we have to hear the "the best team didn't win the championship" "If Bama played UCF 10 times, they would win 9 of them" "Bama played a tougher regular season than Boise, so Boise beating them head to head is not a true indication" "Bama wasn't focused on Houston" wash rinse repeat. Same logic as the NFL OT rules. Nobody complains for weeks on sports talk when the Jets don't get the ball in OT... Only when Brady or Rogers doesn't get the ball, do we need to change the rules. Same will apply here. 16 is great until Clemson gets beat in round 1 by UCF. Then it sucks.

Upsets are bad because of the sports talk media machine?

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

It's pretty irrefutable logic. "I don't want 16 teams because what the media might say if an underdog wins is really annoying."

They will do that a lot less with 8 teams, which is what I prefer. I am not against expansion. 16 is too many, IMO the way the sport is structured and covered today. The 8 seed is likely to be a really really good P5 team. If a Penn State beats Bama, it's an entirely different narrative than if Houston does it.

Yes, when UCF gets zero credit for their biggest win ever because ESPN has a vested interest in the SEC advancing, yes that's bad for college football.

🆗

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

Shhhh dont tell him about the NCAA tournament where UVA lost to UMBC

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

and for 60 straight days on every platform we have to hear the "the best team didn't win the championship" "If Bama played UCF 10 times, they would win 9 of them" "Bama played a tougher regular season than Boise, so Boise beating them head to head is not a true indication" "Bama wasn't focused on Houston" wash rinse repeat.

This is practically what happened the last time Clemson played Alabama in the NCG.

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

I agree that 16 is too many. Don't really care about who whines about it or not but I thats when I think it starts to degrade the importance of the season.

I don't think 8 teams degrades the importance of the season as it is now. It really just allows for all P5 Conf Champs to have a shot. Then you'll have 2 other really strong teams that just didn't win their conf championship. I still see one of these teams being an SEC team every year. Then the highest ranked G5 team.

It just seems to make the most sense.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

I've said it before and i'll say it again:

Fall:
1 warm up game
1 OOC game
8 Conference Games
1 Rivalry game on thanksgiving
Conference championship games

Spring:
128 team playoff - 7 game weekends played every other weekend throughout the spring

With all 128 playing every weekend.

1-128 placements.

Never Forget #1 Overall Seed UVA 54, #64 UMBC 74

Of course. A loser's bracket exists after the first week. Maybe the losers bracket could play on the off weekends so that we'd have 32 games per weekend after the first weekend.

My personal preference would be for every conference champion to get in. Then 2 at larges. That gives us 12 teams. 1, 2, 3, and 4 get a bye, and every team in CFB gets a chance.

Marshall University graduate.
Virginia Tech fanatic.
Formerly known as JWillHokieAlum.

All for it.

Hopefully it's 5 conference champions + 3.

Interesting follow-up today

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

My 2020 Season/Covid19 Challenge: only comment with Marvel memes.

My 2019 Season Challenge: only comment with Star Wars memes. (completed as of Nov. 29)

Pete Thamel: Financial Fallout from Coronavirus will force an Expanded Playoff

Every recent seismic shift in college athletics can be tied to an obvious trigger.

After interviews with a dozen officials around college athletics, it's highly likely we're amid another pivotal moment in the sport. The inevitable financial strain that will accompany the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to help trigger an expansion of the College Football Playoff.

While momentum had been building toward expansion – a WatchStadium.com poll showed 88 percent of athletic directors were in favor – the ability to create a robust new revenue steam for schools amid tight fiscal times has the sport's powerbrokers forecasting an expanded playoff as a likely reverberation from COVID-19.

"I think we were moving in that direction anyway," said a conference commissioner. "Could it be accelerated by something like this? It's a good point. Revenue is going to be an issue. It's not on the front burner yet, but it's a legitimate question."

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

I hate to say I want less football, but i loved the subjectivity of the sport. I would be all for removing the championship game. Just have the new years bowls pick. Let people argue about who was the best. Let people be passionate about what-ifs. Let people learn the life lesson that no matter how hard you work or how good you are that sometimes you get passed over because you don't have the right name on your jersey. I'm still pissed about going to the gator bowl in 2000. That's great for college football. Think about that first year when FSU was undefeated would have been a what-if. They wouldn't have played Oregon, and might argue another national title. OSU doesnt win the NC because they play Oregon in Rose Bowl instead of NC game.

The thought of this gives me anxiety and was everything I hated about college football haha.

I love having a clear cut champion, the pinnacle is what it's all about imo. (Clear cut in the sense that we have all agreed this team is the champion).

So would you support the wild cards not getting a home game?

Top 4 conference champs (including G5 participant if they earn it) get a home game.